The persuaders: Robert Cialdini and the Science of Persuasion

How can I jump a queue? A new book on the secret psychology of persuasion has the answer – and this correspondent is hooked

Notes from NPR: Science Friday Podcast; "The Science of Getting a 'Yes'"

Interview with Robert Cialdini, Author of "Yes: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Being Persuasive"

When In Rome

1. Persuade people to think that they are part of a larger group of people that are all doing something. 
2. The idea of social proof. 
3. The wisdom of the crowd. 
4. We follow what people like us are doing.

Gifts

1. Gifts work remarkably well.
2. Waiters in restaurants that increase their tips significantly by leaving a mint on the tray of the check. If they leave one mint for each diner their tips go up 3.3%. If they leave two mints on the tray for each diner, their tips go up 14% for each diner.
3. If the waiter says, "here's your first mint", then comes back to the table and says, "you know what... for you nice people" and puts the second mint down, tips go up 23%. It's all in the science of reciprocation.
4. People want to give back to those who give something to them.

Fitting In

1. Negative social proof is a result of sending the message that the majority of people do something bad. This allows people to think that it is ok to do something bad.
2. Tax fraud went up when the IRS let people know that so many people were cheating the system.

Accentuate the Negative?

1. Benefits demonstrate something "extra" where as risks demonstrate something that they need to do.
2. People look when they're confused not inside themselves but outside. They look to people just like them.
3. Negative advertising about potential losses and potential costs is more powerful than information about potential gains.
4. Prospect theory: People are more mobilized to hear about potential losses than potential gains.
5. Greater buy-ins result in sending a message that list the potential risks.
6. Negative political campaigns need to be countered to prevent it from seeping into the minds of an audience.
7. Firefighters that were told about previous firefighters who made the poor choice with poor outcomes were better equipped to do well.
8. Instilling fear and adding steps to reduce the problem is more motivating than simply positive messages.

* At a very primitive level, we naturally respond to different pressures. We can counter them if we think critically about any attempt to persuade us.

Social Norms Theory

1. Peers are absolutely ignorant to their own goodness.
2. We are typically a nation of people that do perform socially responsibly but we don't recognize it.
3. One effective tactic is to inform people of the levels of prosocial behavior that is going on.
4. "The majority of guests that do stay at our hotel recycle their towels more than once" is more effective than saying "do this for nature or the good of our future."

Getting Us to Vote

1. If you say, "So many people failed to vote last time that the democratic process didn't get the collaboration that they wanted" is less effective than saying, "so many people like you voted last time that..." produces more people motivated to vote.

Just "Because"

1. We are structured psychologically to need reasons for what we do.
2. Saying "because" and adding a reason yields ascent because people are ready to give ascent to reasons.
3. Just the word "because" is enough to cause people to be more willing to concede.

Conflicts in the Brain

1. If someone acts against the group, there is a portion of the brain that activates a pain response that leads to different kinds of practices and actions in those that receive that information.

Listen to the Podcast Directly from the Website at: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200808222

What I found was tripe. I felt compelled to provide my perspective as a user review. What follows is what I wrote -

While the author claims that the material is meticulously documented and footnoted, there is a strange lack of supporting material for the majority of the overwhelmingly negative conclusions. An example is in the chapter discussing Raila Odinga, where the author claims Obama supported Raila Odinga in his divisive Kenyan presidential bid. First, the author tries to make it appear that Obama visited Kenya during the election season, when in fact Obama visited in 2006, and Odinga didn't declare his candidacy until 2007. Second, I found no footnotes or documentation that showed Obama going on record in support of Odinga - not a single first or second hand account of Obama saying - "I like Raila Odinga", or "What Kenya needs is someone like Raila Odinga". What he does show is that Odinga was one of the people on the stage while Obama gave a speech - along with a number of other local dignitaries and politicians. Oh, and also Obama was critical of the Kenyan government for being corrupt and not paying enough attention to the troubles of the underclass - opinions that were not at the time particularly controversial, even commonly accepted.

Another example is the section where the author takes pains to associate Islam with Obama by way of his father. The author uses the following quote from Obama's paternal uncle - 'I did not see my brother practice Islam, especially after he returned from his studies in the U.S. I did not consider him to be very religious.' to support this conclusion: "Listening to Sayid there is little doubt Obama senior was a Muslim by birth and upbringing, even if his devotion as a Muslim remained in doubt." Most people hearing Sayid's account would have little doubt Obama's father was not a practicing Muslim, especially since this is the way Obama describes him consistently. Why is it so important then that he was a Muslim 'by birth and upbringning' if he rejected Islam personally?

Anyone who reads this book as a strong indictment of Obama is either already inclined to believe Obama is a closet muslim, marxist fifth column, etc etc, or does not have the intelligence to see through this weak construction of innuendo, half-truths, and misleading and disingenuous logic.

There's a certain kind of person that finds this kind of crap terribly attractive and convincing. I'm reading Robert Cialdini's "Influence - Science and Practice" and I'm in chapter three, which talks about how the desire to be consistent in thought and action is a powerful force in determining our actions (and how this is frequently exploited by those with agendas). An example he cites is that at the track people are typically more confident in the horse they bet on than they were immediately before purchasing the ticket. After making the decision, their confidence increases because it is consistent with the choice they've made.  In the case of political candidates, I would posit that it is much easier to believe bad things about a candidate that you've already decided you don't like - no matter how unlikely, poorly supported or even ridiculous.

Another example from Cialdini's book is an episode where he attended a transcendental mediataion seminar with a friend who, after the pitch was over and opened up to audience questions, proceeded to expertly and convincingly dissasemble an refute the core assertions of the presenters arguments for the effectiveness of TM. After the session however he and his colleague (and the presenters) were surprised to see the majority of the audience sign up for the TM classes he had just effectively proven were worthless.  Afterwards in speaking with other audience members who had purchased the TM class they explained - "I was going to go home and think about it, but after hearing your arguments I thought I'd better sign up now - otherwise I'd never try it!".  Audience members had signed up because they had real problems that they desperately wanted solved.  Understanding that if they had given it serious thought they would not sign up (and therefore continue to struggle with thier problems) they signed up quickly to avoid thinking about it, thus keeping hope alive and feeling that they were taking positive action.  This example makes me think more of perhaps why Obama is so appealing to some than of his unattractiveness to others. Certainly a criticism of him has been that he is 'all talk' with little substance. While I don't believe this is true, I can't say that part of his appeal (for me) comes from a certain amount of despiration. The kind of despiration that makes miracle cures attractive, regardless of signs they might not work.  What I know is true is that when I hear Obama talk about the problems of our government, our culture, and our nation I hear the problems framed in ways that are consistent with my experience. I hear the problems framed in ways other politicians and leaders haven't articulated. For me, knowing the answer is great, but barring that the next best thing is understanding the problem.  You can't solve problems you don't understand, except accidentally.  Many in our country don't even seem to recognize that some of the problems exist (e.g. race).  Obama gets it, and my hope is that his perspective will lead to solutions that we haven't been able to reach, or in many cases even contemplate.

Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society's most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.

Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.

In other words, the art of influence and persuasion comes into very good use for the aspiring social entrepreneur or innovator, as working with people to change thinking and actions is one way of creating change within the system.

A great reference that I have come across is the website, ChangingMinds.org, and as Guy Kawasaki put its, ChangingMinds.org is like Robert Cialdini... on steroids.

And for those of you who are unfamiliar with Cialdini, I would highly recommend Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (probably his most famous book), as well as his latest book, Yes!: 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, of which he is a co-author.

Guy Kawasaki also does a fantastic job of reviewing the latter here.

What I Learned Buying a Rug in Turkey

I had no intention of buying a rug on our trip to Turkey in December 2006. Certainly, not on the first day. I'd already purchased a rug; when my son and I had been abducted in Tunis, Tunisia in 1999. But, that's a different story. Yet, there I was, just 4 hours after arriving in Istanbul, shaking hands with a rug merchant as he packed up our newly purchased kilin carpet. How did this happen?

Educators, business people, publishers, we all seek to influence others, and we are all influenced by others. Perhaps my experience in Turkey, seen through the prism of an expert in the principles of influence and persuasion can help us all.

First, let me describe the events leading up to the purchase. Then, I'll relate those events to principles contained in the book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini.

Our hotel, the Mavi Ev, or Blue House Hotel, was just across the street from the famous Blue Mosque in Turkey. As soon as we stepped out to go visit the mosque, the first person approached us,

Salesman: "Do you want to buy a rug?"

Me: "No thank you."

Salesman: "Where are you from?"

Me: "No thank you, we're on our way to view the mosque."

In the 50 yards between the hotel and the entrance to the mosque, we were approached at least 5 times, in similar ways. The sales people were pleasant, often humorous, never hostile. But always persistent, asking at least 5 to 6 questions to try to engage us.

"How long are you staying in Turkey?"

"How do you like Turkey so far?"

"Are you thirsty or hungry?"

"Would you like some apple tea?"

"Do you know where you are going?"

After the Blue Mosque, we walked across the park to the Hagia Sophia, and were approached another 5 to 6 times. But, as we walked up to the Hagia Sophia, we found out that it had just closed, and someone came up to us.

Person: "It's a shame that the Hagia Sophia closes so early. Have you seen the Cisterna Basilica, yet? It's still open."

Me: "Yes, that's one of the things I've wanted to see."

Person: "Let me show you where the entrance is, it's just a block from here."

Me: "We can probably find it."

Person: "I know, but it is really no trouble and will save you some time. How long are you in Turkey for?"

Me: "We're staying for 9 days."

Person: "The entrance is just here, make sure that you walk through all of the passages. Some people just go into the Cisterna, take a look, and then come back up. There is a whole passage to follow, and you'll see the pillars of Minerva and eventually come out about a block down the street."

Me: "Thank you."

Person: "I'll wait for you at the exit. In case you'd like to have a glass of tea and see our showroom. There won't be any pressure for you to buy anything, but as long as you're in Istanbul, you should get to know what types of things are on sale."

Me: "Thank you, but we're not buying anything today. If we buy anything, it will be on our last day."

Person: "I didn't say anything about buying anything. After all, no one needs to buy a rug. But, this will just give you a chance to get educated, and no museums or mosques will be open at that time, anyhow, and it will be too early for dinner."

We entered the Cisterna. And, sure enough, at first it seemed that we should just go in and take a look, but we walked around the whole path, and it was definitely worth the extra time. By the way, if you do end up in Turkey and visit the Cisterna, bring a tripod. It's large and dark, and you can get striking pictures with a 2 to 3 second exposure. As we emerged from the exit, who do you think we saw?

Person: "How did you like it?"

Me: "It was pretty extraordinary."

Person: "Did you get to take any pictures? Can I see them?"

Me: "Sure, take a look."

Person: "And, now, maybe you would honor me by taking some time to have a glass of tea, relax, and learn about Turkish carpets. My shop is just 20 meters this way."

And so, on our first day, we ended up in a Turkish rug merchant. But still, we had no intention of actually buying anything. The job of the first person was to bring people to the shop; he was the shill. This was actually the end of our interaction with him. Once in the shop, we primarily interacted with one of the owners.

Owner: "Come, sit down. Let me explain the different types of rugs to you, and educate you so you'll know a good rug from a cheap one. Here, have some tea."

Owner: "You know, no one comes to Turkey to buy a rug. It's not something that you need. Yet, most people end up buying one. Why? Because, it's art. It's something they decide that they like. And, it's something that they will have and enjoy for the rest of their lives. A good rug will last for over 100 years."

Then, he proceeded to explain the five different types of rugs, the different materials, the different types of knots, and how rugs changed colors as you looked at them from different angles. And also, how December is their slowest season, how they would never be able to devote this much time to someone in the summer season, how to tell real wool and natural dyes from synthetics, and how the prices of rugs are usually 25% less in December than in the summer.

After about 45 minutes, with the education winding down, he asked us which, if any, of the rugs we liked, and if we wanted to see more of that type of rug. Rightly or wrongly, at this point, I felt a little guilty. We'd used up 45 minutes of his time, along with three assistants, we'd drunk his apple tea, we'd learned a lot about rugs. I was still not willing to purchase a rug, but we were at least willing to let him know which of the rugs, we liked.

Once the family had picked one of the rugs, he then proceeded to show us about 20 rugs of the same type.

Next, he asked us which three of those rugs we liked the best.

It was then that my wife said, "you know, we really do need to replace the rug in the dining room sometime, as well as the rug in Rosie's (our daughter) room. But, we do not need to purchase a rug at this time."

The owner then asked my daughter, "if you could have one of these rugs, and if you didn't have to pay for it, can you see any of them working in your room?" And she pointed to one of the rugs. "I really like that one."

Owner to Rosie: "You have very good taste. That rug is 100% wool. Look here, that's how you can tell that they dyes are natural and not artificial. Look at the weave, this is how you can tell it is not machine made. It takes someone three to four months working full time to make a rug like this."

Owner to me: "I know that you are not looking to purchase a rug. In the summer, I would start off with a price of around $3,000 for this rug, and we would easily sell it for more than $2,500. But, if you were interested at all, I'd offer you this rug at $1,800."

Me: "Thank you, but we really are not interested in purchasing a rug right now."

Owner: "Nearly everyone who comes to Turkey is not interested in buying a rug. But, you know, nearly everyone who comes ends up buying one. Because they find something that they really like, something that is going to last them the rest of their lives, and something that they will forever remember their trip to Turkey with."

Owner: "Is there any price, where, if you could own this rug for that price, you would walk out of here happy?"

Me: "Well, I'm really not looking to purchase a rug."

Owner: "Yes, and you may end up not purchasing one. But is there any price where you would say, ‘I am happy to buy that rug."?

Me: "I guess, if I could have that rug for $800, I'd probably be happy."

Owner: "This is a rug that I would be selling in the summer for over $2,500. But you know," looking at Rosie, "you are a very lucky young lady to have a father who has the means and the desire to purchase something like this for you that you really want. I hope you appreciate him."

Me: "Wait a minute, that's a line that I've used in sales training before. That comes right from Joe Girardi."

Owner: "You are in sales? What do you sell?"

Me: "I'm in education, but I used to sell and I used to train sales people."

At this point the owner comes right up to me, within about two inches. He grasps my right hand in his, starts shaking it, and says, "I think we can come to a deal. How about $1,500 for the rug?"

Me: "I really didn't come here to buy a rug. I said that I'd be happy to purchase the rug for $800, but it really wasn't my intent to purchase one.

Owner, still holding and shaking hands with me: "How about $1,400?"

Me: "Well, maybe $900."

Owner, still shaking my hand: "$1,300."

Me: "1,000"

Owner: "I just cannot sell it for 1,000, let's say we have a deal at $1,100."

Me: "Okay."

And that was it. My daughter now has a Kilin rug from Turkey in her bedroom. My son is just shaking his head, "Dad, you did it again."

How did the two sales people do it? According to Robert Cialdini, there are 6 weapons of influence. We can all use them, and they are used on us, either knowingly or by accident:

1. Reciprocation: we try to repay what another person has provided us
2. Commitment and consistency: we desire to be consistent with what we have already done
3. Social proof: we tend to rely on what other people are doing to determine our own actions
4. Liking: we tend to go along with and follow people we like
5. Authority: we feel a sense of duty to follow someone who has authority
6. Scarcity: opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited

You can see how the rug salesmen used practically every one of these weapons in getting me to purchase the rug.

Reciprocation: The shill gave helped us find a suitable site after we were unable to enter the Hagia Sophia, then, he provided additional instructions to make sure we enjoyed it fully. The shop owner gave us snacks and apple tea, plus spent a lot of time with us educating us on oriental carpets.

Commitment and consistency: Once the shill told me that he would meet us at the exit, and once I had not denied that we would, consistency led us to follow him to the shop. But the real and masterly use of the consistency weapon was by the shop owner, who came up to me and started shaking my hand as we negotiated price. It's hard to back down from making a deal as you are affirming it by shaking someone's hand. I'm going to try that technique sometime with my kids when I need them to do something that they really don't want to do, like pick up their rooms.

Social proof: There was the shaking of hands by the shop owner; if he was signaling that we had a deal, who was I to say we did not? But, there was also the assumptive closing by the shill, saying that we would meet at the exit of the Cisterna Basilica.

Liking: Both the shill used helpfulness, stories, interest in our concerns as ways to get us to like them, to create a rapport, before any selling started.

Authority: We went into a lot of shops in Istanbul. I have to say that in practically every single one, we ended up talking with the owner. Of course, I have no way of knowing if it was really the owner, but the person spoke as someone in authority.

Scarcity: knowing that prices were generally a lot higher, and that was confirmed by my son, who'd been in Istanbul for the past three months, let us feel that we would not have the opportunity to purchase at that price in subsequent trips.

What lessons can we take from this?

First, in subsequent negotiations and interactions, we can be more cognizant of the techniques that the sales people were using; "Oh, this is the ‘reciprocation' technique, don't feel that you need to reciprocate. Only purchase if you want the item." Being more aware of these weapons let's us be more resistant.

Second, we can utilize these techniques ourselves. Instead of launching into immediately telling someone what to do (as in "go clean your room", or "do you want to buy this service?"), we can find a way to offer something, we can spend time to insure that the person is in a receptive mood where they like us, we can create a perception of scarcity.

Third, read Robert Cialdini's book. It will provide even more examples to help you manage better, lead better, and resist others who would try to influence you to do things that you don't really want to.

And, with all that, we're happy we bought the rug; it will provide us with a lifetime of memories of our trip to Turkey. If you want to view a short slide show of our trip along with commentary, you can view about 40 pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mweisburgh/sets/72157594454226960/.

Leaders have many roles: strategist, competitive analyst, resource-allocator, priority-setter and, of course, coach.

We’ve always heard one of the most effective way to build and lead teams is by setting a great example.

It’s true.

Who cannot be impressed by all those great photos of legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch, late in his career, beer in hand, fully engaged in conversation with junior high-potential GE leaders?

There is fascinating research to support the value of the leader-as-example-setter-in-chief.  The research is published by Robert Cialdini in his recently updated classic, Influence; and explored in his website, Influence at Work.  (Full disclosure: I’ve long believed Dr. Cialdini’s Influence is the first text any aspiring leader or marketer should read.)

Influence examines many of the our basic instincts and how they are used in practice by businesses to affect (influence) others’ decisions.

In the chapter called “Reciprocation: The Old Give and Take…and Take”, Prof. Cialdini shows the potential power of workplace giving.  Reciprocation is how “we try to repay in kind what another person has provided us”.

A classic experiment describes a university professor sending Christmas cards to total strangers…and the great majority sending return greetings to the unknown prof!

In short, when we do a favor, give a gift or extend a courtesy to others, they instinctively want to do the same, or something similar (i.e. reciprocate).

How often do you:

• Open the door for someone who previously opened a door for you?
• Drive the car or pay for lunch and have someone else say, “l’ll take care of it next time”?
• Plan not to shake someone’s hand only to do so when they extend theirs?  (I bet unreciprocated handshakes are less than 1%!)

And so it goes.

It’s why we, leaders must be the people we want our Organization to be:

• Celebrate our Companies, our products and colleagues…and they’ll celebrate the same. 
• Find heroes in your workplace and others will recognize their (and your) heroic work, too.
• Find (yes, go looking for) ways to say “thank you” for others’ on-the-job successes, and they’ll appreciate what you do, too.

The Golden Rule is alive and well in the workplace, because it’s hardwired in our psyches.

One early-stage venture-capital funded company was hiring at a break-neck pace; the result was a team with few close relationships and a fragmented sense of purpose.

The VP of Human Resources instituted Friday “thank you” sessions.  At all-company stand-up meetings (lasting just 15-20 minutes) employees publicly thanked a co-worker for support, excellence or making a sale.

Guess what?  Often the person on the receiving end of the “thank you” would reciprocate, and thank the person who had thanked them.

Guess what?  Once the process began, nobody wanted to be left out.

The upshot was a huge improvement in company morale.

Lessons Learned: Give a gift, perform well, lead the way and others will reciprocate.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Ah, rhymes. They take us back to the good old days of Mother Goose and Dr. Seuss. They’re catchy, easy to understand, and according to a recent study, they can even make your sales pitch more persuasive.

Sometimes rhyme equals reason

In the study, social scientists took obscure rhymes and modified them to remove the rhyme while retaining their original meaning. “Caution and measure will win you treasure” became “Caution and measure will win you riches.”

The scientists then had participants read each saying and rate it for accuracy. Even though participants had said they believed rhyming did not indicate accuracy, they subconsciously perceived the rhyming statements as more accurate.

So what?

Why is this important? Because it illustrates how rhymes can make your entire sales pitch seem more credible. And at a time when the internet crawls with spammers and scammers, this boost of credibility could mean the difference between a sale or another lost customer.

Rhymes also make your sales pitch more memorable. Just think of all the rhyming slogans tucked away in your brain:

• •  The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup.
• •  Don't get mad. Get GLAD.
• •  The quilted, quicker picker-upper ... Bounty.
• •  Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.
• •  Timex—takes a licking and keeps on ticking.

 49 other ways to be persuasive

The study mentioned above comes from Robert Cialdini’s new book, “Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways To Be Persuasive.”  If you want to hear more great tips from the legend of influence himself, Robert Cialdini, check out the free teleseminar on Wednesday, July 9th.

I got to listen in on a similar call between Robert Cialdini and author Ben Mack, and it was full of great tips on how to improve your marketing both online and off. Can’t wait to be part of this one as well.

In the meantime, what are some of your favorite rhyming slogans? Post them in the comments section below.

You’ve probably fallen victim to this trick more than once. I know I have. Ever since I read Robert Cialdini’s book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, I’ve noticed this sales trigger hidden in websites, e-mail marketing, blogs and forums. Yet it still influences me. Often I see it in action and chuckle to myself, thinking, “Not so fast. I’m onto your game.” And many times, I still end up clicking the “Buy “ button.

What psychological trigger is so powerful, you can recognize it working and still be persuaded?

Two words: social proof.

Think of social proof as “monkey see, monkey do:” it’s a phenomenon that occurs when people look to others, often subconsciously, to determine how to act in a certain situation. You can thank social proof for canned laughter in sitcoms, seeded tip jars and the long lines outside certain nightclubs.

Does that mean we’re stupid? Not really. While we’re worrying over a business presentation or organizing a to-do list in our head, social proof lets us perform dozens of little actions without even thinking about them. Usually, they’re to our advantage.

And here’s a little secret: social proof is really easy to manipulate. Many businesses already use it by displaying testimonials, expert recommendations and awards. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. When done correctly, social proof can put people in a buying frenzy without them even knowing why. It can boost your customer base without hype or heavy-handed sales pitches.

Here are a few tips on putting social proof to work for you:

·    Sing your own praises. Do you have 800 subscribers to your e-mail list? 1,000 subscribers to your blog? Use these numbers to your advantage. The next time you write an e-mail newsletter, consider mentioning that your community has grown to X number of readers. Or make an announcement when your website has reached its 10,000th hit. Just don’t use this technique if your numbers are below average – otherwise it might backfire.

·    Encourage comments and feedback. A high number of comments left on your blog signifies that you’ve got a lot of readers, which can attract even more readers. But you won’t get comments if you don’t encourage comments in your posts. Do so by asking open-ended questions, and covering controversial topics that may spark discussion on their own.

·    Respond to comments and feedback. If someone leaves an interesting comment on your blog, bring it up in a new post. If someone gives a great testimonial, include it in your next e-mail newsletter along with a brief “thank you.” Acknowledging the existence of readers not only makes you look more popular, it gives the impression that you truly care about them.

·    Leverage your testimonials. When gathering testimonials, look for ones that have a beginning, a middle and an end: “After I had my son, I couldn’t lose the extra pounds. Then I tried Diet Plus. Now, I can fit into my high school prom dress!” Can’t find any? Consider asking customers if you can tweak their words to fit this format. Also – when posting testimonials on your site, use people’s full name, location, and a photograph if possible. This seems simple, but it adds a powerful boost of credibility.

·    Adopt an attitude of gratitude. Most people feel self-conscious bragging about their success. If you’re one of them, try framing your words around gratitude. When you mention the number of subscribers, thank your readers for making your newsletter a success. When you announce a month of record sales, mention how much it means to your company. After all, it’s the truth, isn’t it?

·    Study the experts. When I first read about social proof, it seemed like an interesting sales tactic. But it didn’t make me want to jump out of my seat. It wasn’t until I took Jeff Walker’s Product Launch Formula class that I really understood its power. Jeff’s a master of leveraging social proof, and I’ve learned a ton just watching how he markets himself. There are plenty of others. Find one you like, and study his or her every move. You’ll master social proof in no time.

Friday morning I had an exchange with a delivery van driver that seemed to set the course for much of the day's thinking around the state of the media business, content migration, and overall advertising-based revenue models.  In truth, it was a brief conversation -- mostly consisting of nods, grunts and gestures -- and one that would not normally interrupt the flow of a workday. On this occasion, however, it directly touched on a sensitive gripe of mine that I had been having trouble finding a succinct way of articulating.

The driver was merely trying to do his job. I found myself, oddly enough, trying to prevent him from doing that job. His job? Delivering new Yellow Pages phone books to my home. (Another set had already arrived at the office earlier that morning.)

He was insistent. I was more insistent. He backed off and sheepishly removed the stack of books from my front stoop and back onto his van. Apparently, I had not been the only one to stymie his delivery rounds that foggy San Francisco morning.

I began thinking about the interchange. I was, in effect, rejecting the delivery of something I had not ordered, was not consulted about, did not offer consent over, and, in fact, did not want. It occurred to me that this was a fairly recent phenomenon. I did not recall many occasions in the past when I was faced with this "opt-out" dilemma. I then realized that this was becoming an increasingly common problem. Searching for supporting data for my emerging hypothesis, I popped the lid of my blue recyclables bin and, eyeballing it for a brief moment, gauged that some 30-40% of its weekly contents consisted of "free" local papers and other media that I, too, had not requested nor been consulted about. Pulling on that thread long enough I quickly saw therein a troubling parallel for what many startup business models were predicated upon -- "pushing" content versus having it "pulled" by qualified consumers -- and what the implications were for overall valuations for companies adopting this precarious approach.

Think for a moment about the Yellow Pages. Put aside, for the time being, the usual knocks you hear - i.e., it's a dead business, the internet has disintermediated it, it's just for the geriatric set now, etc etc. Those arguments, while valid, miss my central point. At its core, the Yellow Pages business is focused upon driving viewership which, in turn, drives its advertising rate and its core revenue model. Yellow Pages prints up half a million books so they can be delivered to half a million homes so that Yellow Pages can tell advertisers that the advertiser's 1/4 page ad will be in half a million books in half a million homes. End of story. What's left conveniently out of the discussion is the true value of the penetration of that advertisement to that audience. How valuable is each recipient of the Yellow Pages and how does that translate into revenue for Yellow Page advertisers?

In effect, by accepting the Yellow Pages, I become one of that audience. I, for one, would be a terrible customer for Yellow Pages advertisers and, I fear, a fairly typical one. My last three editions of Yellow Pages books are propping up a bookcase in my garage (2004 edition), forming a backstop to a trapdoor in the tool shed (2005) and supporting a TV in the home gym (2006), respectively.  And yet, my receipt of Yellow Pages books each year makes me a "viewer" or "user" as Yellow Pages is defining it and, therefore, I, in a minuscule way, have an impact on what Yellow Pages is charging its advertisers to "sell" to me.

Who, then, is maintaining the statistics for the average annual use of the Yellow Pages in a home that accepts copies of its books, at no charge, and still uses it to find local plumbers, personal injury attorneys, and pizzerias that deliver? Virtually any layperson with even a modest exposure to current web technologies would quickly surmise that, all things being equal, "effective" Yellow Pages usage in any given home has declined, perhaps precipitously, since the emergence of the what we now consider the modern internet.

For decades, in traditional publishing a consumer's (or, in this case, a reader's) value to an advertiser was fairly easily gauged. These readers 'subscribed' to a publication. There was a cost associated with receiving that publication. That cost, even a nominal one, served to "qualify" that lead for an advertiser. That reader, if you'll permit the analogy, was clearly interested in, say, outdoor pup tents because he was a subscriber to Field and Stream magazine, paid $19 a year to receive 12 issues of the publication, and renewed each year for the past five years. The cost of the subscription was the "entry cost", or the glue that cemented the relationship and loyalty of that reader to the content matter and the advertisers whose wares mirrored that magazine or periodical's affinity or area of interest. Simple enough to understand

Now, however, that model is pretty much on life support, if not dead outright. Magazines are being given away in offers and promotions (i.e. trade in your expiring United Mileage Plus miles for these ten magazines, etc) or sold at subscription prices that barely cover shipping and production. The "entry cost" has effectively evaporated to nothing and along with it, the true underlying value of the "readership" figures these magazines, newspapers and periodicals use to support their advertising rate cards. Who is asking the tough questions, then?

Renowned psychology professor and controversial author Robert Cialdini, in his excellent book Influence, uses psychological principles to explain what most laypeople understand common-sensically: people tend to place a low value of that which they acquire with little effort or at little cost. Media, in all its forms, has become so ubiquitous and free that "readership" or "viewership" has little consequence as a gauge of potential revenue. As I see it, for the purposes of venture-backed companies "pushing" content in this way, what needs to happen is a more structured, formalized means of more realistically and effectively gauging the value of viewership, readership, etc in a world where increasingly there exist no "qualifiers" or "entry costs" for consumers to receive the content and engage with the companies providing the service. If you believe that premise, then you must also believe the premise that customer loyalty for these same companies must be at a level far below what we would consider typical or expected for these types of companies in the recent past. Customer "loyalty" for media-based companies, then, (as we have long understood the notion) must be in decline at a frightening rate.

What all this noodling means, to my mind, is a need for investors and management teams to apply greater rigor in analyzing what "viewership" or "readership" really mean to emerging web companies in the internet/content/Web 2.0 sphere where valuations are too often driven in large part by user traffic, content and services are being "pushed" to drive user metrics rather than being pulled by paying customers, and there exist little or no switching costs. We have already seen some "value realignment" in the social networking sphere (see my earlier piece, $15 Billion Folly regarding Facebook) and we will likely see a good deal more carnage as most social networking sites still struggle with the 'hot new club' problem or fall victim to it (Friendster, anyone?)

As goes the famous Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." Yes, indeed, things are definitely getting interesting around here.

1. A great presentation, by Dr. Rosemary Dietrich, on Persuasion and Influence in Training,

2. An overflow crowd that was very lively and enthusiastic,

3. Good weather, finally!

While the last two chapter meetings were marked by inclement weather that kept attendance artificially low, this meeting was packed with pre-registrants and walk-ins, such that more chairs had to be set up in the room. A new policy we're trying out - allowing people to attend just the talk (no dinner) for a lower cost seemed to be well-received also, though most came for dinner and enjoyed the interaction of the mealtime. As usual, we had a number of folks "in transition" who are looking for their next career role, and the format of our meetings allows for networking connections to be made that might prove helpful.

Louise Vivona-Miller, one of our first-time guests, won the traditional pie (cherry this time, in honor of President's Day) for having the closest birthday to the event!

Dr. Dietrich did a wonderful job presenting the principles of persuasion hammered out by Dr. Robert Cialdini, while also facilitating helpful group discussions. In fact, the audience participation was so lively that she barely made it through the material! Some photos of this enjoyable evening together are below (our next event chapter meeting, in March, is on Level 3 Evaluations - see our Events page for more information and a link to sign up!).

Discussions over dinner

Dr. Dietrich presents

Application discussions at the table

Discussion of principles during workshop exercises

If these were single, rationally considered decisions, you probably wouldn't have made them.  However, as psychologist Robert Cialdini observed, a person's commitment to a particular course of action sometimes "grow legs."   Once we become clearly committed, we have a strong tendency to gradually increase our level of commitment to that course of action.  In doing so, we often lose sight of the original reasons and justification for choosing that course of action in the first place.

For example, it's not unusual for the owner of an old car keep incrementally spending money on repairs as things break down... first the brakes... then the muffler... then the transmission... etc... hoping that each of these repairs will be the last.  As the bills mount, the owner often becomes even more determined, "I've already spent more than $2,000 repairing this thing.  I'm not going to back down and, in effect, throw that money away."

This very common pattern is called irrational escalation and describes situations in which people make seemingly irrational decisions in order to justify the decisions they've already made or the actions they've already taken.  Irrational escalation shows up in a wide variety of situations including:   bidding wars that occur during auctions or corporate takeovers; military strategy (consider the Vietnam and Gulf wars); corporate or market investments that wind up "throwing good money after bad;" "collector" behavior; or the escalating cycle of retribution and punishment that occurs when a husband and wife become locked into a contentious divorce.  In addition, clever salespeople or fundraisers often employ "foot in the door" techniques that take advantage of people's tendency towards irrational escalation as small initial commitments eventually build towards large commitments.

Although much of the research on commitment has focused on this negative behavioral cycle, the escalation of commitment is not always negative!   Whenever we commit our time, energy, hearts, and minds to a worthy cause, it can have a very positive influence on our identity and our future behavior.  Over time, under the right conditions, we eventually have a hard time letting go; our positive behavior becomes less about "what we do" and more about "who we are."  The positive escalation of commitment can describe how people adopt healthy behaviors like getting regular exercise or engaging in wellness programs... or become involved charity work and community service.

Recently, I've been studying the process people go through as they increasingly commit to energy conservation behaviors or "green" causes.  It seems that people typically adopt a conservative or green attitude in baby steps.  As they take each step, it reinforces their focus and awareness, as well as, their sense of identification with an aligned set of underlying values and beliefs.

Many utility companies are starting to more actively promote energy conservation or demand management (shifting use to off peak times) programs.  The effectiveness of these programs is highly dependent on the careful design of offerings, communications, and feedback mechanisms that get a "foot in the door" and build customer commitment incrementally from there.  Effective programs make it easy for customers to get started and then carefully reinforce a gradually increasing level of association with being a conservative, ecologically and economically minded consumer.  These programs can amplify customers' commitment by providing positive feedback and by making the customer's commitment publicly and socially visible. 

Effective design of influential energy conservation and demand response programs is highly customer personae dependent.   Obviously, not every customer has the same beliefs, attitudes, priorities, and behaviors related to energy use, conservation, the environment, and social responsibility.  In many ways, the adoption of energy conservation programs is similar to the adoption of wellness programs.  Some people readily adopt these programs because they fit with the way they already think.  For example, some customers have an "independently healthy" or "naturalist" personae related to their health.  On the other hand, some customers will never engage in a wellness program; they might have more of an "avoider" personae regarding their health.  However, there are several personae that are more influenceable.  The most effective programs must be designed to resonate with the mental model of these customer personae.

Cognitive Dissonance... Driving the Escalation of Commitment

One of the factors that drives the escalation of commitment is cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance was first identified in the 1950s by psychologist, Leon Festinger (see:  The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance and When Prophecy Fails).  Since that time, it has grown to become one of the central theories of social psychology.  A great, more recent book on the topic is Carol Tavris' and Elliot Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me):  Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person simultaneously holds conflicting ideas or beliefs.  Because holding two conflicting ideas or beliefs creates an unpleasant tension, people are naturally motivated to reduce it.  Dissonance reducing behavior is ego-defensive; by reducing dissonance, a person gets to maintain their positive self-image; an image that depicts them as a good or smart person.   Cognitive dissonance often produces behavior that is apparently irrational; although, to the person, it may seem very sensible.

Understanding and leveraging cognitive dissonance is a powerful tool for designing customer or employee experiences that positively influence a person's thinking and behavior... and drive the escalation of commitment:

• Justification and Filtering. Following a decision, especially either a difficult one or one that involves a significant amount of time, effort, or money, customers almost always experience dissonance. Did they do the right thing? The chosen alternative is seldom entirely positive, and the rejected alternatives including the "do nothing alternative" are seldom totally negative. After a significant decision, customers typically seek reinforcement that their decisions were good ones by seeking information that is reassuring. If at all possible, they try to convince themselves and others that it was a logical and reasonable thing to do. They avoid thinking about either the negative aspects of the choice they've made or the positive aspects of the un-chosen alternatives. In designing customer or employee experiences, it is important to arm customers with the story they'll tell themselves and others. In many cases, it makes sense to continue marketing after the sale in a way that provides people with the ammunition they need to justify the decision they've made.
• Responsibility. Dissonance effects are greatest when (1) people feel personally responsible for their actions and (2) their actions have serious consequences. If there is a significant amount of external reinforcement or incentives, we may not "own" the decision. For example, offering rewards to individuals for performing even the most pleasant activities decreases the intrinsic value of those activities and reduces the individual's responsibility for having done it. This is why "incentive programs" not only don't build permanent behavior, but may undermine it in some cases.
• Consistency and Escalation. In the absence of strong conflicting signals, dissonance reduction will reinforce actions consistent with earlier commitments and behavior. In addition, once a small commitment is made, it sets the stage for ever-increasing commitments. The behavior needs to be justified, so attitudes are changed; this change in attitudes influences future decisions and behavior. When customers commit themselves in a small way, the likelihood they will commitment themselves further in that direction is increased. This process of using small commitments to encourage people to accede to larger commitments has been dubbed the "foot in the door" technique. It is effective because having done the smaller favor sets up pressures toward agreeing to do the larger favor; in effect, it provides justification in advance for complying with the large requests.
• Irrevocability and Inevitability. Two of the most important characteristics that effect cognitive dissonance are the relative irrevocability and inevitability of the decision. Irrevocable decisions always increase not only the dissonance but the motivation to reduce it. Once we've committed ourselves to an irrevocable course of action, it's in our best interests to justify the decision we made and avoid conflicting information. In addition, research shows that a person's dissonance is reduced with choices they see as inevitable.

In summary, designing influential experiences requires an understanding of cognitive dissonance and, in particular, how cognitive dissonance drives the escalation of commitment.   More on this in future posts.

You will better understand all compliance techniques used by people trying to persuade you in doing something.

Here are the compliance rules - with statements that characterize them!

• Reciprocation - "Pay every debt, as if God wrote the bill." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

• Commitment and Consistency - "It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end." - Leonardo da Vinci.

• Social proof - "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" - Walter Lippman

• Liking - "The main work of a trial attourney is to make a jury like his client" - Clarence Darrow.

• Authority - "Follow an expert" - Virgil.

• Scarcity - "The way to love anything is to realize it might be lost" - GK Chesterton.

For more information: a great review at Amazon.

A great mindmap that summarizes the book and this podcast of Mr. Cialdini (relating to this book).

Other books on this blog

Free mp3 with interview with Robert Cialdini (free subscription to site required)

Enjoyed this post? Get more like it by subscribing to this blog: press the 'subscribe now' button below:

Joel is a brilliant interviewer with a keen wit, incredible insights and has a trait that is often missing in the media arena today...he is an outstanding critical thinker. 

He started our training session this evening with a rant about the travesty of the recent media coverage of the results in Iowa.  He panned his former colleagues for their misplaced and intentional influence on the direction of the election.  The intermission between the Democratic and Republican debates last Sunday allowed a window to ask informal questions of the Republican candidates.  The moderator asked the Republican candidates to rate Barack Obama's performance.  Although the candidates panned Obama, there was little said about the other candidates.  The underlying message - Barack is the man to beat.  Joel's additional take - it could be perceived as political underwriting of Obama by the network. 

Joel also noted the media spin on the results of the Iowa vote, as well as the poll of less than 400 people in New Hampshire, as an indicator of Obama as the ultimate victor in the Democratic Party as well as the entire election.  As he said, those two states with a total population of approximately 4,000,000 have 1/17th of the voters as his home state of California.  It would be wrong to assume that a small percentage of the population represents the entire US. 

When I first heard Joel speak, he wowed the crowd with his incredible presence. His core message was that no one will listen to you unless they see, feel and hear your authentic humanity.  Joel's authentic humanity resonates with his audience.  Although Hillary is a brilliant woman, her lack of visible humanity may seal her fate.  Hillary should hire Joel if she wants to win.

I am not usually vocal about the elections and I have not made a decision about my vote at this point.  However, I do feel strongly that people must become educated about the candidates and make their own decisions instead of using shortcuts of following other people in positions of influence. 

One of the best books I read last year was Robert Cialdini's book on influence.  It is provocative and scary.  I highly recommend reading this book before you buy a car or listen to the media.  It exposes the tactics of people in positions of influence and reinforces the need for universal free thinking.

Thank you for your indulgence - this is definitely not about interior design.  I will leave future political comments to my very bright, insightful husband who is also one of the best critical thinkers and writers that I've ever known.  He, by the way, doesn't get caught up in all the hype, and so too hasn't made a final decision. 

Ma gandesc ca am fost de multe ori atentionata sa fiu consecventa sau ca nu am fost consecventa de catre cei din jurul meu si ca m-am simtit chiar prost in acele momente pentru ca am avut impresia ca am dezamagit pe cineva sau am inselat asteptarile. Se pare ca, intr-adevar, consecventa impune o constrangere sociala foarte puternica, trebuie sa te mentii la inaltimea vorbelor tale, trebuie sa faci ceea ce spui/promiti pentru a nu cadea in dizgratia cercului in care te invarti. De aici si pana la a fi consecvent chiar si impotriva intereselor tale nu este cale lunga.

Si iata ca revin la principiile manipularii ale lui Cialdini pentru ca simt nevoia sa fiu consecventa si sa va povestesc despre toate asa cum am promis la primul post.

Ce inseamna sa fii consecvent? E un comportament social de aliniere a faptelor la declaratiile proprii. Practic, o data ce ai luat o hotarare, ai spus ceva sau ti-ai exprimat o parere trebuie sa te comporti in acord cu pozitia pe care ai luat-o anterior.

De ce suntem consecventi? In primul rand pentru ca trebuie sa dovedim integritate (nu intru aici in detalii, dar integritatea e un lucru bun, toata lumea o doreste din partea celorlalti, toata lumea se agita sa o demonstreze) pentru a fi catalogati ca persoane dezirabile in mediul social. Ca o paranteza, un coleg se ferea zilele trecute la o petrecere sa fie fotografiat fumand pentru ca promisese ca s-a lasat definitiv de fumat si spunea el, "trebuie sa demonstrez integritate". In al doilea rand, si nu e de neglijat, consecventa ne ofera un shortcut in viata contemporana atat de aglomerata si agitata. O data ce ne-am format o parere fata de un lucru/o persoana, o atitudine vizavi de un anumit subiect, nu trebuie sa ne mai gandim la asta. Ganditi-va cum ar fi sa mergeti saptamanal intr-un hipermarket unde va faceti cumparaturile si sa trebuiasca sa reanalizati de fiecare data brandurile pentru sare, zahar, bauturi racoritoare si alte cele 50 de produse de pe lista de cumparaturi. Consecventa ne salveaza de consumul de energie si de timp pe care l-ar presupune schimbarea alegerilor si opiniilor.

Prin urmare, nu e nici o supriza ca multi dintre noi preferam sa trecem pe pilot automat, sa lasam consecventa sa lucreze in timp ce noi ne relaxam fericiti ca nu trebuie sa gandim prea mult, chiar daca nu e cea mai potrivita alegere.

Robert Cialdini da un exemplu  pentru a ilustra cum functioneaza consecventa impotriva propriilor noastre interese care mie mi s-a parut cel putin interesant si real. O tanara avea o relatie dezastroasa cu un barbat care bea foarte mult, se comporta urat cu ea si nu dorea sa o ia in casatorie. Dupa nenumarate certuri cei doi s-au despartit si ea a inceput sa se vada cu un vechi prieten pana lucrurile au devenit serioase si au inceput sa planuiasca casatoria. In momentul in care pregatirile erau in toi, femeia a primit un telefon de la fostul iubit care aflase de intentiile ei, acesta implorand-o sa nu se casatoreasca pentru ca el o iubeste si vrea sa se intoarca la ea. Mai mult i-a promis ca o sa se casatoareasca cu ea si ca se lasa de baut. In acel moment tanara a renuntat la planurile pe care le avea cu iubitul ei actual si s-a intors la vechea relatie, infruntand in mod sigur stupefactia si  dezaprobarea rudelor si prietenilor. Dupa un timp a vazut ca iubitul ei nu se lasa de bautura si dupa mai bine de doi ani nu o luase nici de nevasta. Ea a ramas insa in relatia pe care a ales-o, fiindu-i foarte devotata iubitului. Pusa sa explice, ea a recunoscut ca o data ce l-a ales pe acesta, si-a dat seama ca el era pe primul loc in inima ei si asumandu-si aceasta decizie in fata ei si a tuturor, ea a devenit mai fericita sa traiasca alaturi de el, desi conditiile puse initial nu au fost indeplinite. 

Va dati seama ca o asemenea minunatie de mecanism automat nu putea trece neobservata de catre cei interesati sa obtina profituri. Hai sa vedem ce au facut producatorii de jucarii din SUA pentru a contracara scaderea vanzarilor de jucarii in lunile ianuarie si februarie. Dupa cum stiti, cele mai mari vanzari de jucarii sunt in preajma Craciunului, cand parintii se grabesc sa le ofere copiilor jucariile pe care si le doresc. Dupa care, in lunile urmatoare parintii o lasa mai moale cu indeplinirea dorintelor pentru ca au si bugetele epuizate. Solutia: producatorii de jucarii lanseaza modele noi si captivante de jucarii in lunile noiembrie-decemebrie pe care le promoveaza agresiv incat orice copil isi implora parintii sa ii cumpere si lui noua gaselnita. O data ce parintii au promis copilului ca ii vor cumpara jucaria, principiul consecventei intra in actiune. Fabricantii de jucarii au grija sa aprovizioneze magazinele cu un stoc redus din vedetele gamei astfel incat ele sa nu satisfaca cererea si cumparatorii disperati sa fie nevoiti sa cumpere jucarii de inlocuire din modele vechi. Insa promisiunea ramane nerespectata. Dupa sarbatori, ce vad copii la televizor? Reclama la jucaria cea noua pe care si-o doreau si nu au primit-o de Craciun. De aici si pana la : "tati mi-ai promis ca imi iei Robocopul zburator" nu e decat un pas. Parintele ghinionist e nevoit sa-si tina promisiunea si sa mearga in magazinele tixite acum de produsele nou-lansate.

Cheia activarii comportamentului consecvent este obtinerea angajamentului. O data asumata o pozitie publica, iti va fi foarte greu sa o abandonezi. Administratorii chinezi ai lagarelor din timpul razboiului din Coreea erau maestri ai manipularii prin obtinerea angajamentului. Fenomenele petrecute acolo au fost studiate cu mult interes de catre psihologii americani. Pentru a obtine colaborarea soldatilor americani capturati, chinezii nu foloseau forta si cruzimea ca aliatii lor coreeni. Deviza lor a fost: incepe cu putin si construieste constant. Pornind de la incurajarea prizonierilor  sa faca afirmatii nevinovate anti-americane sau pro-comuniste (gen "SUA nu sunt o tara perfecta" sau "Intr-o tara comunista nu exista somaj") au ajuns la a le cere acestora sa faca o lista cu problemele pe care le are America si sa se semneze la sfarsit, pe care le cerereau sa o citeasca in cadrul unor discutii cu alti prizonieri. Li se repeta ca de fapt erau propriile lor cuvinte si este ceea ce cred. S-a ajuns la situatii in care prizonierii au scris eseuri in care au dezvoltat acele liste cu probleme care ulterior au ajuns sa fie citite pe posturile de radio. In aceasta ipostaza, prizonierul cu pricina constata ca este un colaborator al comunistilor si un sustinator al politicii lor ceea ce il facea sa colaboreze si mai intens cu ei.

Tehnica concesiilor mici care devin din ce in ce mai mari merge mana in mana cu cea a piciorului in prag. O data ce s-a deschis putin usa sa intre piciorul, nu e greu sa o deschizi in larg. O data ce esti de acord cu o anumita pozitie aparent nevinovata si aparent ideea ta, se schimba total atitudinea. Iti insusesti si iti asumi aceasta pozitie devenind o alta persoana. Daca am participat ocazional la o colectare de fonduri si numele meu a aparut ulterior intr-o brosura intr-o lista cu titlul: "Oameni de bine" sau "Oameni generosi" voi avea tendinta sa dau bani mai multor cersetori care imi ies in cale sau mai multor institutii care imi bat la usa. Trebuie sa ma ridic la inaltimea etichetei puse. Practic ne schimbam imaginea despre noi insine examinandu-ne faptele si ascultand vorbele celorlalti despre noi. Un lucru similar se intampla la scoala, de exemplu, cand profesorii care dau 10 unui elev vor evita sa ii puna o nota proasta cand il prind nepregatit. Ii gasesc o scuza sau ii spun sa se pregateasca mai bine pentru ora urmatoare insa nu pot sa paraseasca pozitia asumata. (Cred ca ati observat cu totii acest comportament in scolile romanesti).

O tehnica folosita foarte des in cursurile de dezvoltare personala este cea a scrierii pe hartie a obiectivelor, problemelor, planurilor de actiune etc. Toata lumea recunoaste puterea magica a scrisului, nu numai sefii chinezi ai lagarelor. Scrisul este asumare. Latinii spuneau: verba volant scripa manent. Deci, un angajament este si mai puternic daca este scris. Nu este insa o regula, tine si de integritatea celui care face angajamentul.  

Ochiul public este si mai important insa. Ma intreb daca conseceventa ar functiona in absenta societatii omenesti. Daca ai fi consecvent pe o insula pustie. Faptul ca ai martori, te face sa iti asumi. Unii oameni se lasa de fumat sau tin cure de slabire cu ajutorul angajamentelor publice.

 Un alt factor care contribuie la puterea principiului consecventei este efortul pe care il depui atunci cand iti iei un angajament. Robert Cialdini da exemplu ceremoniile complicate de initiere din unele triburi africane. Din aceeasi categorie sunt si probele prin care sunt obligati sa treaca aspirantii la fratiile studentesti sau recrutii din unele unitati militare. Desi umilintele, suferinta si violenta la care sunt supusi subiectii sunt descurajante, asta nu diminueaza numarul de aspiranti sau loialitatea ulterioara a celor aceptati fata de grup. Dimpotriva, cei care trec probele sunt profund patrunsi de spiritul grupului din care fac parte si se identifica cu el pentru ca si-au asumat toate suferintele si umilintele. S-a demonstrat ca cei care au trecut prin ceremonii de initiere mai blande nu au fost la fel de receptivi la ideile grupului si au fost mai putin impresionati de valoarea acestuia.

Un aspect foarte important si foarte juicy pe care Cialdini il lasa la finalul capitolului despre consecventa este interiorizarea angajamentului. Pornind de la faptul ca sefii lagarelor ofereau premii foarte mici prizonierilor care scriau eseuri pro-comuniste (gen un fruct sau un pachet de tigari), autorul isi da seama ca de fapt, chinezii voiau sa obtina o asumare interioara a angajamentului de la prizonier. Daca i-ar fi oferit privilegii si cadouri mari, acesta si-ar fi spus ca o face pentru ele, insa cum atentiile erau neinsemnata, prizonierul credea ca a ales sa faca afirmatii anti-capitalism in absenta unor presiuni si ca isi asuma raspunderea personala pentru cele scrise. Un experiment facut cu copii de 7-9 ani a demonstrat superioritatea alegerii interioare asupra amenintarilor si a presiunilor. Desi pe termen scurt presiunea si violenta pot fi foarte eficace in reprimarea unui comportament nedorit. Pe termen lung, in absenta acestora, comportamentul nedorit revine. De aceea, bataia nu e chiar rupta din rai.

In vanzari se practica tehnica aruncarii mingii joase: adica se arunca unul-doua avantaje vizibile pentru a obtine angajamentul, dupa care, pe motiv ca s-a produs o eroare, ele sunt retrase. In felul acesta, omul pleaca fericit ca are produsul, desi a facut o afacere proasta. Aceeasi tehnica a fost folosita si de iubitul vicios al tinerei de care va vorbeam in primul exemplu.

Sper ca v-am oferit destule motive sa fiti mai atenti pe viitor cand sunteti tentati sa fiti consecventi fara sa ganditi. A nu se intelege ca e gresit sa fim consecventi. Atentie insa la cazurile in care ne sabotam pe noi insine. Pentru tehnici de aparare, mergeti la carte. 

I sei principi esplorati da Cialdini sono:
- la coerenza-impegno
- la reciprocità
- la riprova sociale
- l'autorità
- la simpatia
- la scarsità

LA PERSUASIONE
"..se chiediamo un favore, l'otteremo più facilmente se forniamo una qualche ragione.."
"..principio di contrasto...E' molto più vanatggioso per il venditore presentare per primo l'articolo più costoso.."
".. Presentare prima un prodotto di poco prezzo e poi uno costoso fa sembrare quest'ultimo ancora più caro di quello che è.."
RECIPROCITA'
"..il potere della regola di reciprocità è tale che, facendoci un favore per primi, gli altri, anche persone che non ci piacciono affatto, possono aumentare di molto le probabilità che noi accondiscendiamo a loro successive richieste.."
"..La capacità dei doni non richiesti di indurre una sorta di obbligazione è riconosciuta.."
".. Un piccolo favore iniziale può indurre a contraccambiare con un favore sensibilmente più grosso.."
".. la regola permette che sia la stessa persona a scegliere il tipo di favore iniziale indebitamente e il tipo di contraccambio sedbitante.."
".. La regola del contraccambio produce concessioni reciproche in due modi. Il primo: chi riceve una concessione è spinto a rispondere a tono. Il secondo..: il primo ad offire una concessione non verrà sfruttato.."
".. "ripiegamento dopo il rifiuto".. Proprio perchè funziona, la manovra può essere usata intenzionalmente per ottenere quello che si vuole.."
"..L'azione combinata della regola di reciprocità e del principio di contrasto può avere una forza impressionante. Integrate nella strategia di ripiegamento-dopo-il- rifiuto,le loro energie congiunte sono capaci di effetti stupefacenti.."
"..due sottoprodotti: il senso di essere in qualche modo responsabili dell'avvenuta transazione e la soddisfazione per come sono andate le cose..inducono le vittime a rispettare l'impegno preso e ad accettarne di nuovi per il futuro.."
IMPEGNO E COERENZA
"..l'importanza del pricipio di coerenza nel dirigere le azioni umane..il bisogno di coerenza un fattore centrale nella motivazione del comportamento.."
"..un alto gradi di coerenza è associato di regola a solidità personale e intellettuale.."
".. non c'è nessun espediente cui un uomo non ricoora per evitare la fatica autentica di pensare.."
".. LA CHIAVE E' L'IMPEGNO PRESO.."
"..Che cos'è che fa scattare in noi quell'automatismo?..:l'impegno. Se io riesco a farvi prendere un impegno..avrò preparato il terreno per una vostra condotta automatica e irriflessiva, coerente con quell'impegno iniziale.."
".. L'idea generale è preparare il terreno per una distribuzione su tutta la linea, partendo con una piccola ordinazione. Guardate la cosa da questo punto di vista: quando una persona ha firmato un'ordinazione per la vostra merce, anche se il profitto è così scarso da non compensare quasi il tempo e la fatica di una telefonat, da quel momento non è più un cliente potenziale, ma un cliente acquistato a tutti gli effetti.."
".. un piccolo impegno iniziale può essere usato per manipolare l'immagine che le persone hanno di se stesse.."
"..L'atto magico..l'interessato si basa sulla stessa fonte per decidere che tipo di persona è: il suo comportamento gli dice chi è, quali sono le sue credenze, i suoi valori e atteggiamenti.."

Intr-un post anterior am pus in discutie proverbul latin Do ut des. Atunci inca nu aflasem ca sta la baza unuia dintre principiile psihologice fundamentale de influentare a comportamentului uman prezentate de Robert Cialdini in Psihologia persuasiunii. Principiul reciprocitatii – asa il denumeste autorul – este unul din cele 6 (despre care voi incerca sa va povestesc si cu alte ocazii) pe care Cialdini le-a identificat ca avand capacitatea de a produce supunere si acord din partea oamenilor fara ca acestia sa gandeasca inainte.

 Cum functioneaza acest principiu? Regula reciprocitatii spune ca oamenii incearca sa rasplateasca automat si asemanator gestul altei persoane fata de ei. Cand primesti un cadou de ziua ta de la cineva, iti vei aminti la randu-ti sa trimiti un cadou de ziua persoanei respective; daca esti invitat la o petrecere, vei face in asa fel incat sa inviti si tu gazda la o petrecere. Ne simtim obligati sa rasplatim favorurile, darurile si gesturile care ne-au fost facute. S-a constatat ca aceasta regula este universala. Sociologii spun ca nu exista cultura umana care sa nu se supuna regulii. Mai tineti minte povestile de la istorie despre descoperitorii Americilor care faceau cadouri (nimicuri fara valoare pentru ei) pentru a primi in schimb diverse obiecte de valoare de la bastinasi? Regula dainuie de la inceputurile istoriei omenesti.

 Robert Cialdini foloseste o poveste reala si uimitoare pentru a ilustra incredibila putere a principiului reciprocitatii. In 1985, Etiopia se confrunta cu cele mai mari lipsuri: seceta, razboi, economie in ruina, foamete. Mexic a facut o donatie de 5000 de dolari acestei tari. Si principiul reciprocitatii a functionat! La scurt timp in Mexico City a avut loc un cutremur devastator care s-a soldat cu multe victime. Crucea Rosie etiopiana a insistat ca Mexicul sa primeasca ajutorul banesc inapoi. Se pare ca Mexic mai ajutase Etiopia cand aceasta fusese invadata de Italia.

Constrangerea de a intoarce o favoare a trecut inaintea lipsurilor si a foametei. A interesului propriu. Am invatat sa ne conformam acestei reguli pentru ca stim ca incalcarea ei atrage dispret si sanctiuni sociale: cei care nu intorc favorurile sunt considerati nerecunoscatori, mitocani.

 S-au facut experimente care au relevat faptul ca regula reciprocitatii anuleaza simpatia sau antipatia. O data ce ti s-a facut un favor, vei incerca sa-l intorci chiar daca persoana respectiva iti displace profund, doar pentru a-ti stinge obligatia. In politica, in marketing, la locul de munca, pana si in relatiile sentimentale, principiul isi dovedeste eficienta. Cate esantioane de produs nu ati primit de la firme de cosmetice sau de la fabricanti de alimente? Totul in incercarea de a ne determina sa ne simtim obligati sa cumparam produsul.

Dar nu orice cadou si favoare este un semn de manipulare. Aceasta apare atunci cand ni se declanseaza un sentiment de indatorare facandu-ne o favoare nesolicitata. Atunci cand colegul iti aduce o sticla de cola fara ca tu sa-i fi cerut sau cand vanzatorul te imbie cu o felie de branza pe care o poti lua gratis. Dar nu numai obligatia de a ne achita de obligatii face ca regula sa functioneze, ci si obligatia de a primi. In fata unui cadou nesolicitat, nu mai putem alege persoana careia sa ii fim datori. Cel care face oferta este cel care decide ceea ce vrea in schimb. Practic, el initiaza obligatia, alege ceea ce da si ulterior ceea ce cere in schimb. Si iata-ne marionete.

 Psihologic, oamenii se simt neconfortabil cu sentimentul indatorarii. Incercam sa facem orice ca sa scapam de el. Cel care stie acest lucru, il poate folosi in avantajul sau. Atunci cand solicitam noi insine o favoare, vom fi foarte atenti sa fie ceva care poate fi returnat, ca valoare sau importanta. Cand primim un cadou fara sa-l cerem, nu mai controlam rasplata.

Atentie insa, favorurile nesolicitate trebuie alese cu grija pentru a fi primite si pentru a functiona ca mecanism de indatorare. De aceea ele nu vor fi niciodata prea mari, pentru a evita sa fie refuzate. De obicei, oamenii refuza cadouri cu valoare mare pe care nu le-au solicitat pentru a evita sentimentul indatorarii care insoteste aceste gesturi. Insa un cadou mic va fi mai usor acceptat. Cel care-l primeste va considera datoria sa mult mai mica. Insa nu se intampla intotdeauna asa.

Regula reciprocitatii a fost analizata si in relatiile dintre barbati si femei. Cercetarile arata ca, daca in loc sa-si plateasca singura bautura, o femeie permite unui barbat sa i-o cumpere, este judecata imediat (atat de barbati cat si de femei)  ca fiind disponibila din punct de vedere sexual.

In negociere, principiul reciprocitatii functioneaza foarte bine prin acceptarea concesiilor reciproce. Primitorul unei concesii se simte obligat sa faca si el una. Din nou, reciprocitatea ne face sa acceptam concesii pe care altfel nu le-am fi acceptat. Autorul povesteste o situatie in care a fost abordat de catre un baietel care s-a oferit sa-i vanda bilete la o tombola. Neinteresat, Cialdini a spus nu. Baiatul atunci i-a spus ca daca biletele la tombola nu-l intereseaza, poate ar vrea sa cumpere niste batoane de ciocolata pe care le vinde cu doar 1 dolar bucata. Cialdini a cazut in plasa desi nu-i placea ciocolata iar 1 dolar era un pret foarte mare pentru un baton. Secretul sta in alegerea unei oferte mai greu de acceptat la inceput si prezentarea unei concesii acceptabile in a doua parte. Primitorul concesiei se va simti obligat sa o accepte in majoritatea cazurilor.

 Despre cum sa ne protejam de influenta principiului reciprocitatii, aflati mai multe in cartea lui Robert Cialdini. Nu e cazul sa devenim paranoici, unele persoane sunt cu adevarat generoase si bine intentionate. Atentie la manipulatori insa! 

Da una decina di giorni sto leggendo Robert Cialdini: Le armi della persuasione

   Le armi della persuasione. Come e perché si finisce col dire sì  Robert B. Cialdini

in fondo mi è costato meno di una pizza

L'essenza un po' disarmante credo stia in una citazione del celebre filosofo Alfred North Whitehead << La civiltà progredisce estendendo il numero di operazioni che possiamo eseguire senza pensarci>>. E' incredibile, proseguendo con la lettura, come vengano riportati numerosi esempi che sostengono che ciascuno di noi tende a impiegare delle scorciatoie che probabilemte ci aiutano a sopravvivere, ma che impiegate ad arte possono essere impiegate in maniera efficace per indurre dei comportamenti nelle persone.

Sto cercando negli approcci attuali coi clienti di  avvalermi di alcuni spunti presi  dalla lettura del testo che  mi sembra notevole.

E' evidente che non sono ancora arrivato alla fine e che devo ancora affinare la tecnica, tant'è che un espediente usato nell'invito a partecipare ha fallito miseramente.

Non temete, in genere sono però perseverante e non demordo molto facilmente.

A presto, Paolo Piffer